Feature Request - Agents: down with groups?

[dustymc]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

ref: https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/4549#issuecomment-1098329575

We have group agents, they're not much used (805 agents, 417 having at least one member), probably not consistently used in the UI, and it just seems like unnecessary complication.

Describe what you're trying to accomplish

Simplify and unify.

Describe the solution you'd like

• convert agent_type=group agents to something else ('other' maybe)
• link any group members with some sort of relationship (associate of maybe, but something else or something new would work too)
• get rid of the type, table group_member, and any special handling

Describe alternatives you've considered

Kludge on.

Additional context

I don't think group agents do anything that "normal" agents and relationships aren't capable of; we now have a robust agent relationship table, let's just use it.

Priority

High-ish; we seem to have some momentum regarding agents, let's not lose it.

[Jegelewicz]

I agree with this. From the list in https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/4549#issuecomment-1098329575 I added members to the 84 groups that I could (but some of them are very low quality members), I converted a few to person agents - seems they were just created incorrectly as groups, and I marked a few as duplicates (one consequences of groups is that you end up with groups that are names differently, but include the same agents). I also marked a large number as organization and I think we should change those, but can you do that in bulk? That will leave some super low quality group agents and a bunch that should really just be verbatim (expeditions, etc.). or I suppose one might argue those are "other agents". Anyway, let me know how I can help from here.

Group Agent Cleanup.csv

[campmlc]

Group agents are highly useful for giving credit for participants of expeditions, but they haven't been used correctly because for a long time they weren't working properly to add people. I would like to see this use expanded and imoroved rather than eliminated. @jldunnum

[Jegelewicz]

It wouldn't be eliminated - just transitioned. You could set up (we can switch current ones) a group as an agent of type "organization" or maybe we still call them groups? But instead of the current "member" functionality, we create relationships between tow agents as we did with the Arctos Working Group Officers.

I think we will need an agent relationship loader, but this method is so much better because it is easy to indicate the dates of involvement. Also, right now we have groups like "students Northwest Florida State College" which are essentially meaningless - that could include hundreds of thousands of people or "Parasitology 2014" - how many institutions offered this in 2014? We need to be better.

Group agents are highly useful for giving credit for participants of expeditions

I think that this should be done via accessions - everything from an expedition goes into a single accession (with related permit!) and all of the expedition participants are listed as "received from". Adding a list of 20 people as "collector" doesn't add directly to anyone's real body of work and in fact it probably over-credits people by giving them credit for collecting everything from the expedition rather than the two things they actually collected.

[dustymc]

expanded and imoroved

That's in no way incompatible with what I proposed, just use the mechanism that all other relationships - and groups can't be anything else - use.

As above, I'm fine with new relationships if necessary, just come up with a name, definition, and potentially functionality.

[Jegelewicz]

@dustymc how about we just transition all current groups so that the members have an "associate of" relationship to the group, then we dump the current "group" functionality? This is just a simplification so that all agents function in the same manner.

[ewommack]

Group agents are highly useful for giving credit for participants of expeditions

I think that this should be done via accessions - everything from an expedition goes into a single accession (with related permit!) and all of the expedition participants are listed as "received from". Adding a list of 20 people as "collector" doesn't add directly to anyone's real body of work and in fact it probably over-credits people by giving them credit for collecting everything from the expedition rather than the two things they actually collected.

Or maybe something with projects? I'm doing something similar with Projects and our 3D skull work with the UWY Library, and tying in each worker who is producing data into the project. That way they have a permanent page they can refer back to in their CV if they need.

[campmlc]

Both of those are good ideas, but without a group agent, thousands of specimen collections and determinations just get put on the PIs name, and many times they aren't even on the trip.

On Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 11:41 AM Elizabeth Wommack @.***> wrote:

• [EXTERNAL]*

Group agents are highly useful for giving credit for participants of expeditions

I think that this should be done via accessions - everything from an expedition goes into a single accession (with related permit!) and all of the expedition participants are listed as "received from". Adding a list of 20 people as "collector" doesn't add directly to anyone's real body of work and in fact it probably over-credits people by giving them credit for collecting everything from the expedition rather than the two things they actually collected.

Or maybe something with projects? I'm doing something similar with Projects and our 3D skull work with the UWY Library, and tying in each worker who is producing data into the project. That way they have a permanent page they can refer back to in their CV if they need.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/4555#issuecomment-1099459967, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBE5WJY3PIHBEN2UOI3VFBKFRANCNFSM5TMDTUDA . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>

[Jegelewicz]

but without a group agent, thousands of specimen collections and determinations just get put on the PIs name, and many times they aren't even on the trip.

But right now all 191 of these "group" agents have NO MEMBERS - so who is getting credit for any of it? Do we have lists of names to add to the groups?

1977 All U Of A Student Art Exhibit 1997 Angelo State University Mammalogy Class 1998 Angelo State University Mammalogy Class 1999 Angelo State University Mammalogy Class 2015 Angelo State University Mammalogy Class 2018 Angelo State University Volunteers 2019 Angelo State University Volunteers A. K. and K. L. A. K. and L. K. Alaska Pipeline Route Survey Albatross Expedition Albatross North Pacific Expedition 1906 Anderson et al APEX program APSU Students Arizona Expedition ASU App Team B. , T. & F. B. B. B. and D. J. M. B. G. and C. H. B. G. and C. H. and J. C. B. G. and J. C. and C. H. B. G. and J. C. and R. M. and J. P. C. BILG Expedition Bio 116 students BIO Photography Group, Biodiversity Institute of Ontario Biobus 2010 Biol FW Inverts class Biology 366 class Biology 432 Class Birdsell & Gilmer Blue Oak Ranch Reserve Staff BOLD ID Engine Bolivian Expedition 1987 Bolivian Expedition 1996 Bosque Ecosystem Monitoring Program Boulder County Sheriffs Deputies BYU AEC Ecology Project BYU Herp Class BYU Students California Expedition California Expedition of 1901 Camp Ockanickon Campers Carnegie Museum and Indiana University Expedition Carnivore Initiative Project Colorado Museum of Natural History South American Expedition (1925-1926) Colorado State University Wildlife Management CTNRC team CU Expedition NW Colorado CU Geology Party CU Museum Expedition to Mexico CWA Dixie College Field Class Ecology of Infectious Diseases Project Evanston High School Biology Class F and K Field Mammalogy Class Flora of North America Editorial Committee Florida Expedition Florida Expedition, 1877 Geology Field Camp 1975, University of Alaska Fairbanks Geology field trip, fall of 1977 Gienger et al. Gle/Buck, Grinnel College Field Class Herpetology class HMC Collector HMC Legacy Collector J. R, CS JHU Hanta Survey Juniata Expedition, 1873 K. W. Philip, et al. Kansas Mammal Atlas Project Ladder Ranch Survey 1994 Ladder Ranch Survey 2000 Lone Star Cement Company personnel Magna Site Expedition Mammalogy Class Mammalogy Class 1964 Mammalogy Class 1980 Mammalogy Class 1981 Mammalogy Class 1982 Mammalogy Class 1986 Mammalogy Class 1988 Mammalogy Class 1991 Mammalogy Class 1992 Mammalogy Class 1994 Mammalogy Class 1996 Mammalogy Class 1998 Mammalogy Class 2000 Mammalogy Class 2002 Mammalogy Class 2004 Mammalogy Class 2009 Mammalogy Class 2010 Mammalogy Class 2020 [JA Cook] Maynard-Pratt Expedition MSB - field trip MSB Division of Mammals Staff (2020) MSB DOM Volunteer Museum Expedition Museum Party Native collector Natural History Club NCSU Herpetology class North Arm Crew Northern Michigan University Faculty Northern Michigan University Guest Northern Michigan University student NPRA employees Nuns at St Mary's Mission Occidental College BIO 105 course Occidental College BIO 260 course Occidental College BIO 356 course Occidental College BIO 369 course Occidental College Oceanology course Ornithology class Pal. Expedition Panama Hantavirus Project 2001 Panama Hantavirus Project 2002 Panama Hantavirus Project 2003 Panama Hantavirus Project 2004 Panama Hantavirus Project 2006 Panama Hantavirus Project 2007 Panama Hantavirus Project 2008 Panama Hantavirus Project 2010 Panama Hantavirus Project 2011 Panama SIGEO Climate Change Project Parasitology 2014 Peter's family Quillen Mr. & Mrs. R. H. D. and K. T. J. R. H. D. and S. J. M. Red Des. Exepedition #1 Royal Ontario Museum Field Party S. A. and S. L. S. J. M. and A. S. H. S. J. M. and J. B. F. S. W. and M. K. Scott Johnson's Nearshore Survey Team Scripps Institution of Oceanography VII-TOW Expedition Sea of Cortez Expedition senior class Innolo River High School Sitka High School Field Science Class sons of C. Olalla sons of Teodomiro Mena Spilogale Research Crew Steere Expedition to the Phillipines Stream Ecology Class UAF students Northwest Florida State College T. Park Ecology Class Transfer from Ethnology Treasure Island Scout Camp Staff U Of A Art Exposition U of A Seminar U. S. Expedition UAM & UCMP team UAM ES Imaging Project UC Berkeley Integrative Biology 174 class UC Expedition UCM 1969 Mexico Expedition UCM Coahuila Expedition UCM Excursion to Mexico UCM Expedition UCM Expedition for SE USA UCM Expedition to Coahuila UCM Expedition to SE USA UCM Geological Party UCM Magna Expedition UCM Mexico Expedition UCM SE Expedition UCM Sonora Expedition UCM Summer Expedition 1971 UCM Yucatan Expedition UMC Expedition to Mexico Unalakleet School students University Acquisitions University Expedition to NE Colorado University of Arkansas Herp class 1974 University of Colorado Expedition to NW Colorado University of Wyoming Geology Class UNM BIOL 487 Ichthyology UNM Research Group UNM Tropical Biology Class 2004 USDA Biological Expedition USDA Forest Service Insect and Disease Reports Utah State Herp Class Van Buren Expedition Walker family West Park Commissioners WNMU Field Biology Class- 2005 WNMU Herpetology Class

[dustymc]

just transition all current groups so that the members have an "associate of" relationship to the group, then we dump the current "group" functionality

Is that different than what I proposed?

without a group agent,

Meh, keep it if you want, non-person agent type doesn't do anything anyway, I just want to get rid of the second type of relationship (=table group_member). I (probably) wouldn't even object to some sort of 'collected as part of group' relationship.

collections and determinations just get put on the PIs name, and many times they aren't even on the trip.

No data structure can compensate for that.

[Jegelewicz]

Is that different than what I proposed?

I don't think so - just trying to clarify.

[Nicole-Ridgwell-NMMNHS]

Since this thread is about group agents - I can see by looking at group agents that person A, person B, and person C is a common format of group agent. I would like to make a group agent like this (Paul May and Spencer Lucas) for a locality attribute determiner since you can only add one name for that field. Is this an appropriate use of group agents? Is there an alternative way to do this/will there be if we change group agents?

[dustymc]

I think that's all functionally identical. It's either

• agent representing multiple entities-->normal relationship structure-->agent1,agent2

or

• agent representing multiple entities-->special (group) relationship structure-->agent1,agent2

so same things on both ends (agents). Groups still look like arbitrary agents differentiated only by making us follow a separate path, which means we never focus on one path long enough to do cool(er) things.

[Jegelewicz]

@Nicole-Ridgwell-NMMNHS how's this? https://arctos.database.museum/agents.cfm?agent_id=21344806

[dustymc]

This is complicating other things, I'm going next task with

@dustymc how about we just transition all current groups so that the members have an "associate of" relationship to the group, then we dump the current "group" functionality? This is just a simplification so that all agents function in the same manner.

which is identical functionality in a better-developed structure, unless someone comes up with a timely and compelling reason to do otherwise.

[Jegelewicz]

I think that's fair - it effectively does the same thing.

[campmlc]

Expedition agents are useful as group agents because they give credit to the contributions of multiple members. We use them in MSB. The alternative is to pick one member of an expedition and assign all the collecting and preparing activities to them, which isn't fair and doesn't represent reality. This happens too. I prefer to use the group agents. I have been involved in many expeditions that I received no credit for as a collector and preparator and determiner because only the name of the PI was used for all attribution.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 8:36 PM Teresa Mayfield-Meyer < @.***> wrote:

• [EXTERNAL]*

I agree with this. From the list in #4549 (comment) https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/4549#issuecomment-1098329575 I added members to the groups that I could (but some of them are very low quality members), I converted a few to person agents - seems they were just created incorrectly as groups, and I marked a few as duplicates (one consequences of groups is that you end up with groups that are names differently, but include the same agents). I also marked a large number as organization and I think we should change those, but can you do that in bulk? That will leave some super low quality group agents and a bunch that should really just be verbatim (expeditions, etc.). or I suppose one might argue those are "other agents". Anyway, let me know how I can help from here.

Group Agent Cleanup.csv https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/files/8485820/Group.Agent.Cleanup.csv

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/4555#issuecomment-1098651539, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADQ7JBH46SVCIMVHJAXNHQLVE6AEBANCNFSM5TMDTUDA . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

[Jegelewicz]

@dustymc there are still a few agents of type group because the term is till in the code table. Can we convert the few there and get rid of the term? Can we do this today?

[Jegelewicz]

I just did this - the agents marked as groups were all changed to organization and the term deleted from the code table.